Watching the newest episode of "The Walking Dead" made me think of something. What is the rate of this show in USA? Pg-13 or higher? In my country this is not suitable for children, yet they hire children actors to be part of something not suitable for kids. How does that work?

Last edited by angelusbr on Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:43 pm

ChewyChewy

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:23 pmPosts: 5460

Re: The debate about children and movies

angelusbr Wrote:

Watching the newest episode of "The Walking Dead" made me think of something. What is the rate of this show in USA? Pg-13 or higher? In my country this is not suitable for children, yet they hire children actors to be part of something not suitable for kids. How does that work?

It's very hard for adults to play children's roles?

In all seriousness, I'm not sure, although Danny Lloyd apparently didn't find out he was in a horror movie until after The Shining was finished.

But that's something I've wondered myself. Why expose real children to something unsuitable for children? Unless maybe they've been raised so well that such wouldn't impact them that negatively, but how often is that the case? (I'm actually asking, I don't know.)

Well, I'm what you could say "raised well" because my parents never hid anything from me,including gory pg-18 stuff with bad language etc.It didn't take long for me to think "big deal, movies aren't real".And its the same with my younger brothers and sisters.I guess it also has to do with how the parents pay attention to you, when I was confused about something I had always the ability to talk to a very open mom.It wouldn't surprise me if children playing in child-inappropriate movies have the same, it isn'treal, so big deal.

_________________I has Deviant... urrm... by same name (durr)

Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:55 pm

angelusbr

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:26 amPosts: 1754

Re: The debate about children and movies

I also grew up well. My parents made sure to explain to me the difference of reality and fiction. that's why Io played violent games and watched violent cartoons and still grew up to be a normal person. Those things didn't affect my personality. But why involve children in something if they refuse to let children watch? Do the actors are even allowed to see the full episode/movie after it is done?

HmI've never thought of that,I'd assume it's on a parent to parent basis, like any normal child.

_________________I think in Non-sequiturs

"I told you not to put metal in the science oven! What'd you do that for?"

Only kind of a jerk.

Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:04 pm

Penwrite

Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:03 amPosts: 3407Location: Canterlot

Re: The debate about children and movies

Plus guys, think of it this way. Those kids in those roles, they're actually involved in the making of this stuff, so know from day one that it isn't real. So really, they would have a better ability to tell reality from fiction.

Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:12 pm

Daggy

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 9:31 pmPosts: 776

Re: The debate about children and movies

angelusbr Wrote:

Watching the newest episode of "The Walking Dead" made me think of something. What is the rate of this show in USA? Pg-13 or higher? In my country this is not suitable for children, yet they hire children actors to be part of something not suitable for kids. How does that work?

It's actually rated MA (17-18+, I forget which). I haven't actually seen that show, so I don't know whether or not it's possible, but there's a possibility they just edited in the children later. I'd assume they're not told exactly what they're acting for, just do their lines and be taken home by their parents. If that's not the case, they would most likely meet the actors playing the parts of those unsuitable roles and shown they're not bad. Often times, most of the effects are added in later, because it's hard to get those things in during the actual shooting.

These are all assumptions, of course. I don't actually know, but I've seen/read a few articles about shows and what happens behind the scenes.

I'm more than a little skeptical of topics named "The debate about [x]", but this looks fine for the moment. For future reference though, you should probably contact somebody before making topics that you think constitute a debate (If you did so for this topic, you can just excuse this little rambly bit here and skip on down to where I actually start talking).

I think, if a child is involved in a production children are banned from or advised not to see, they both

A. clearly can separate acting and fiction from reality, andB. have consenting guardians.

There's also that the finished product may be less child friendly than the process of making it- ie, if the things that push the rating up aren't shot while the kids are on set, or if the product, when put together, has meanings or themes that the child didn't understand when they were shooting it.

_________________

Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:15 pm

Seth

Moshpit Addict

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:32 amPosts: 5652Location: We outch hyah

Re: The debate about children and movies

It's either that or the kids parents are comfortable that their kids can handle it and just let them act in it.(or maybe they just have bad parents, but let's not get into that can of worms)

_________________I think in Non-sequiturs

"I told you not to put metal in the science oven! What'd you do that for?"

Only kind of a jerk.

Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:16 pm

angelusbr

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:26 amPosts: 1754

Re: The debate about children and movies

CaptainPea Wrote:

I'm more than a little skeptical of topics named "The debate about [x]", but this looks fine for the moment. For future reference though, you should probably contact somebody before making topics that you think constitute a debate (If you did so for this topic, you can just excuse this little rambly bit here and skip on down to where I actually start talking).

I think, if a child is involved in a production children are banned from or advised not to see, they both

A. clearly can separate acting and fiction from reality, andB. have consenting guardians.

There's also that the finished product may be less child friendly than the process of making it- ie, if the things that push the rating up aren't shot while the kids are on set, or if the product, when put together, has meanings or themes that the child didn't understand when they were shooting it.

Sorry. I'll be more careful from now on. I just wanted to hear (or rather read) your opinions on the matter. I think I'll change the subject to "discussion". Anyway, I don't think they edited the scenes with children later since the interaction with the surroundings didn't feel out of place. That or they are VERY good actors.Again, I don't know how law works in USA. But can an adult give permission to a child to go see a 18+ movie in the theatres? The children, in this case are with their responsible adult, of course.

Again, I don't know how low works in USA. But can an adult give permission to a child to go see a 18+ movie in the theatres? The children, in this case are with their responsible adult, of course.

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the American ratings system for films. They're a little more complex than just naming the minimum age requirements.

In a direct answer to your question, the "R" rating means that anyone can see the film as long as they are or are accompanied by somebody who is at least 18. So, yes, If I was above 18 and had a 3 year old child, I could take them to an R film, in theory.

Watching the film is much less realistic then acting the film.Trust me on this (I did acting a bit), but for an actor, if you want to be good, whenyour character goes through something traumatic, you have to be the person going through it.So you must have a very good sense of whats real or not (child or no child) if youwant to act something.You must be able to step into and out of the "virtual" you for the act.

And its actually very underestimated what a young kid can understand...so that's why I find many films overrated in their PG.

I think the kid is an actor and understands that even though it looks real to the audience, it is not real, and will not be real for the foreseeable future. Just a guess, that is a great question though.

A lot of the time the kids aren't even exposed to everything in the film or show. They just keep them around for the parts they need and they don't really see the big picture.

I have to doubt that one, but i'm sure it happens. Let's look at movies like Kick bubblegum and Elm STreet - The New Nightmare for example. And who can forget Exorcism?

It's really tough to judge these things though and where the children actors are allowed to say such stuff, but i read on some of their commenting videos that they are only allowed to say it 'in film only' or do these things because it's a film. I'm sure it takes alot of convincing to put them on myself, but some kids have fun with it since to them, it's suppose to be fiction. and if they can do it, what's to stop them other than people thinking they are too young?

I admit i still get creeped out sometimes thinking about it, but it helps add reality to the movies and i'm sure there's usually a mutual agreement behind the film that allowes them in the first place.

_________________3 words - Liquid Metal Fur

Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:00 am

Radio Blue Heart

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:27 pmPosts: 2642Location: North Carolina

Re: The discussion about children and movies

I know that in some countries, specifically Italy, children are not allowed to act in violent scenes. So for the monster child in "Phenomena" the part was played by a little person.

In "The Walking Dead", the character Carl, the boy, rarely appears in the more violent scenes. Although I think they excuse the scenes of children zombies being blasted because they are zombies. Its an odd double standard, but I am reminded of how the film "Evil Dead" was released in Germany uncut because the characters who died were zombies and "had no souls and did not have the same rights as human beings" or something to that effect.

Sometimes they would get around it by filming in countries with looser laws on the subject, like Spain. Spain gave us the 1976 horror film "Who Can Kill A Child?", which is often cited as the inspiration for the Stephen King story "Children of the Corn". In other killer kiddie films, the adult go to insane lengths not hurt the murderous children, in this film, after being driven too far by their sadism, the protagonist lays waste to them with an MP-40 submachine gun.

As far as ratings systems go, it is more about marketing. Most theater chains will not carry a film with the NC-17. And, before that rating was invented films that were denied a rating or were never submitted for one were labeled with the "X", "not rated" or "no one under 17 will be admitted". This could sometimes kill a film's distribution as some theater chains would not carry it and some news papers would not carry ads for it. This especially got worse toward the end of the 1980s when independently owned theaters and drive-ins were being driven out of business.

With the R certificate you can still have adult content and children can still get in to see it. With parent or guardian accompaniment anyway. It is not about protecting impressionable young people, but more about filling theater seats.

_________________"I have known hardship and learned to aid the wretched."-Virgil

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum